"A paedophile who raped a ten-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a judge said his young victim had dressed provocatively. Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 24, could have been jailed for life after twice attacking the girl in a riverside park,"

screams The Daily Mail this morning.  Mr Fenn it transpires, had pleaded guilty to two counts of rape involving a ten year old girl.   His co defendant Darren Wright, who had encouraged the commission of the offences, received a prison sentence of nine months after pleaded guilty to inciting the girl to engage in sex acts.  Paedophile, rape and attack are very emotive words.  One can imagine that even at this moment some dark shadow in government will be moved to draw plans to impose obligatory life-sentences for anyone convicted of rape involving a child under the age of sixteen years.  No doubt a stiffening of the law in such a manner would please Dr Michele Elliott of Kidscape who is reported by The Daily Mail as saying,

 "This sentencing is beyond pathetic, it is utterly derisory. For the judge to say that the way she was dressed in any way excuses a 24-year-old man having sex with her is disgraceful and ridiculous."

The NSPCC is reported to have added its two-pennies' worth,

"There's no excuse for having sex with a ten-year-old, no matter how she dresses."

Even the most cursory examination of the facts related by The Daily Mail  (and better still the original Oxford Mail report) show why the Judge was entitled, indeed obliged by justice to impose a short, rather than long, term of imprisonment. The defendants thought that the girl was sixteen years old.  It appears that the Crown accepted that presumption as being not unreasonable.  Mr Fenn was guilty of rape because as a ten year old, the Law deems the young girl involved as not being able to consent to sexual activity, thus notwithstanding that her involvement was consensual and not forced (in the true sense of the word) upon her, it was illegal.  The defendants did not realise that they were committing criminal offences. Nevertheless, that illegality has resulted in the defendants being sentenced to terms of imprisonment.  Harsher sentences would have been unfair.  His Honour Judge Julian Hall did justice to the case.

Oxford Mail - Judge claims paedophile victim 'dressed provocatively' - George Gaynor

Judge's mercy for the man who raped 'provocatively dressed' girl of ten

It is self evident that in matters appertaining to law and order, the Government has tended to dance (or rather, knee jerk) to the tune of the media.  It is frequently overlooked however, that a more insidious influence upon Government has been exerted by favoured focus and pressure groups.  Using their privileged access to Government, these groups have been able to set agendas and outmanoeuvre opponents. Presented with cogent argument and evidence refuting the efficacy of following a particular course of action, the Government chooses its moment and then ploughs on regardless. The Government’s desire to amend the law so as to ensure rape convictions are more easily secured is a classic example. Today, Clare Dyer, legal editor of The Guardian reports,

“The government is to press ahead with plans to reform the rape laws in an attempt to increase the low conviction rate, despite strong opposition from the judges who will have to put them into effect.”

The new devices that are thought will be effective include,

“a power for expert witnesses to give general evidence, not about the specific case, but about how rape victims generally behave, to dispel “myths” that might affect the jury's reactions and an automatic right to use the alleged victim's videotaped interview with the police in place of her main evidence at the trial.”

It is all going to end in tears.  Judges and advocates will all be painfully aware of their duty to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial.  Accordingly the worst excesses of the reforms will be mitigated.  Juries will suspect (rightly) that the legal system is bending over backwards to ensure a conviction and will react accordingly.  Thus the conviction rate will continue to hover at the current rate (between 5% and 6%) and the whipping boys, the judges and barristers, will again be described as “ignorant” and “devious”, respectively.

What the “reformers” fail to understand, is that action and reaction are equal and opposite.  The more they weight the system against the defendant, the more likely it is that the jury will smell a fit up and throw the case out.  Pressure groups have a skewed view of the world and can be forgiven their myopia, but Government must be more rational and must legislate on principle and compelling evidence alone.

Ministers defy judges on rape law reforms

Lovesick lesbian cried rape to frame an innocent

She cried rape, he must be guilty, right?

Barristers oppose 'dangerous' plans to reform rape law

Professor Jennifer Temkin rides again: devious barristers and ignorant judges

Government to load dice even further against fair trial

More nonsense from this partial New Labour Government

Our senior politicians might reflect how their headline catching pronouncements are interpreted abroad, as today’s article in Pravda about paedophiles and chemical castration shows.  One cannot help but suspect that something has been lost in translation.

Having discussed the purported success of chemical castration in Europe and some states in the USA, the Pravda article then continues incongruously about male pattern baldness:

“[Physical] castration prevents male pattern baldness if it is done before hair is lost, however, castration will not restore hair growth after hair has already been lost due to male pattern baldness...[and it] eliminates the risk of testicular cancer, and it may even reduce prostate cancer”

…nevertheless I’m minded to persevere with scalp massage and drinking cranberry juice, thank you very much.

Paedophiles will be castrated for their crimes in Britain

Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor of The Daily Telegraph, reports today of the response to the comments of Miss Barbara Hewson, a barrister, in the Bar Council's magazine Counsel regarding guidance issued to judges earlier this year by the Judicial Studies Board, which accepted the possibility that female judges, magistrates or tribunal members might wear the niqab, or veil, in Court.  Miss Hewson professed concern that the guidelines contemplated veiled judges and were “astonishing and subversive”, adding “the United Kingdom is not a sharia state.”

Responding, Fatim Kurji argued that,

“As for veiled judges and the suggestion that the “United Kingdom is not a sharia state”, this is what I call “the BNP argument”. It implies a woman who wears a niqab comes at the erosion of British values. Such an astonishingly offensive remark undermines the long-enduring libertarian values.”

I have always considered the question of female advocates or judges wearing a veil in Court as a non-issue, largely because so few would avail themselves of the opportunity.  From a practical point of view, the wearing of a veil by one party potentially limits the degree of interaction that would otherwise take place between judge and advocate.  Being able to see someone’s face greatly assists communication.  In Court, the quality of communication is frequently decisive. The wearing of a veil in Court would certainly be a significant departure from previously accepted practise.

Where I take issue with Miss Kurji is that Miss Hewson is perfectly entitled to make the points she has and by doing so has not presented “the BNP argument.”  It is not acceptable that anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of a minority group is accused routinely of prejudice or worse, branded as a bigot.

BNP jibe at lawyer who opposed veiled judges

Recently The Times reported that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) had created a team called Road Safety Support, to help the Police deal with the increasing number of drivers seeking to contest speeding tickets by citing “legal technicalities”. The legal technicalities included challenging whether a speed camera was properly calibrated, that speed signs were obscured or cameras had given false readings.  In many cases the Police have failed to secure convictions because they failed to comply with certain aspects of the law when enforcing speed limits.

It is curious that the Police find it exceptional that they must comply with the law when seeking to secure a conviction.  In this country, for centuries it has been incumbent upon prosecuting authorities to prove their case by presenting to the Court sufficient evidence of a defendant’s guilt.  Should radar equipment not be calibrated properly so that it records a speed of 33 mph for a vehicle travelling at 29 mph in a 30 mph limit, the driver is clearly not guilty of speeding.  Where a speed sign is obscured, natural justice requires that a driver unfamiliar with the area should not be prosecuted.

The setting up of this new unit is tantamount to the Police admitting that they were not exercising due diligence when presenting some of these cases to the Court and were failing to ensure that they possessed solid, reliable evidence.  It is nothing to do with “loopholes” and everything to do with competent evidence gathering and prosecution.

The Times - Speeding drivers with loophole lawyers

Tough on Liberty, tough on the causes of Liberty

Malaysia is a forward-looking, democratic country that abides by the rule of law.  It happens also to be a Muslim country.

According to the New Straits Times, at the High Court Registry in Shah Alam, the state capital of Selangor, on 14^th May 2007 a Hindu man, Mr V. Suresh, applied for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of his wife Siti Fatimah Abdul Karim (who I shall refer to, wrongly, as Mrs Suresh) from detention at the Baitul Aman Faith Rehabilitation Centre, where she had been sent by the Malacca Syariah High Court on 8^th January 2007.

Mr Suresh had married his wife according to Hindu rites on 10^th March 2004 at a Hindu temple in Malacca.  They lived together in Malacca and together had a daughter Diviya Dharshini, born on 19^th December 2005. The daughter was raised according to the Hindu religion.  By all accounts (and unsurprisingly) Mrs Suresh had professed the Hindu faith and had changed her name.  Following the marriage, she had attempted to formally change her name and religious status from Islam to Hindu and was advised by the Melaka Islamic Religious Department to make a formal application in this respect to the Malacca Syariah High Court.  The application was filed in late 2006 and the first hearing took place on 8^th January 2007.  Upon attending the hearing, Syariah Court officials detained Mrs Suresh and placed her in the Baitul Aman Faith Rehabilitation Centre.

You might think that my righteous indignation arises from the knowledge that this poor woman could be incarcerated simply for choosing to convert and practise the "wrong" religion. Whilst it is another example of how religious courts established to protect and advance the interests of their own faith cannot be trusted to apply justice without fear or favour, affection or ill will, in fact my ire is raised because in Malaysia, unlike the United Kingdom, its citizens still have an unrestricted right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus.